hb_kb_ingest

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It implies a persistent mutation but says nothing about indexing, deduplication, chunking, provenance handling, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible — all material for an ingest tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the core verb front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what ingestion produces (e.g., a knowledge ID) and where the content lands. It instead covers only the action and input formats, leaving the agent short of what it needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'URL or file content' loosely maps to the source/content fields but adds no format, size, or tagging syntax beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb and resource ('Add new knowledge') and enumerates the accepted content forms (text, URL, file content), so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent write-oriented siblings such as hb_mem_store or hb_garden_put, which prevents a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to ingest into the knowledge base versus storing to memory (hb_mem_store) or the garden (hb_garden_put), nor any prerequisite or ordering advice. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.